It is hoped that in the upcoming coverage of the 2008 West Virginia primary, facts will replace convenient assumptions about the nature and changing character of West Virginia.
Sandwiched between the twin contests on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina and those on May 20 in Kentucky and Oregon, will be the West Virginia presidential primary on May 13. Which means that for a week the Mountain State will be the epicenter of the historic 2008 contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The last time the state received such national attention was in 1960 when John Kennedy battled Hubert Humphrey. For that May primary, media coverage gets a mixed grade card.
A positive aspect of that coverage was the refusal of reporters to cooperate in a smear against Humphrey. The Kennedy campaign had obtained copies of correspondence between Humphrey and his draft board concerning his deferment in World War II, but the press would not write the story. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr. raised the issue himself, the reaction, the public outrage against the smear tactic prompted Roosevelt to apologize and Sen. Kennedy to disown the attack.
The national media, however, did not show such reticence when it came to furthering stereotypes about the state.
Ken Kurtz, at the time a reporter in Charleston for WSAZ-TV, noted that a rule of good journalism is to "Never assume." But that rule was not strictly observed when a horde of national reporters descended on the state finding bigots behind every bush.
According to Kurtz, they assumed that "we were ignorant hillbillies and prejudiced Protestants." "They overlooked the political forces at work and overemphasized the Protestant heritage of West Virginians."
Kurtz quoted a staffer who witnessed a reporter from a national news magazine questioning a voter when Kennedy was campaigning in Cabin Creek. "Do you have any problem voting for a Catholic?" asked the reporter. The voter responded, "I vote Democrat." The reporter then asked, "Does Kennedy being a Catholic bother you?" "I vote straight Democratic, son." Finally the reporter asked, "Does it disturb you that a Catholic is running for president? Do you have any ill feelings against a Catholic?" "Nope," the man replied, "Never met one."
New York Times reporter Bill Lawrence appeared to be one of the most persistent in finding bigots to quote. Such a perspective helps explain why his article on the morning of the primary suggested a Humphrey win.
Ann Hearst, the Kennedy county chairwoman from Morgantown, accused the press of not working hard enough. In an interview for the JFK library she said, "A lot of them didn't bother going out. They sat at their typewriters and typed and ate and talked to themselves." Hearst said, "We knew Kennedy was going to win, because we had contacts with the grass roots in all the areas, and the press did not."
Sandwiched between the twin contests on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina and those on May 20 in Kentucky and Oregon, will be the West Virginia presidential primary on May 13. Which means that for a week the Mountain State will be the epicenter of the historic 2008 contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The last time the state received such national attention was in 1960 when John Kennedy battled Hubert Humphrey. For that May primary, media coverage gets a mixed grade card.
A positive aspect of that coverage was the refusal of reporters to cooperate in a smear against Humphrey. The Kennedy campaign had obtained copies of correspondence between Humphrey and his draft board concerning his deferment in World War II, but the press would not write the story. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr. raised the issue himself, the reaction, the public outrage against the smear tactic prompted Roosevelt to apologize and Sen. Kennedy to disown the attack.
The national media, however, did not show such reticence when it came to furthering stereotypes about the state.
Ken Kurtz, at the time a reporter in Charleston for WSAZ-TV, noted that a rule of good journalism is to "Never assume." But that rule was not strictly observed when a horde of national reporters descended on the state finding bigots behind every bush.
According to Kurtz, they assumed that "we were ignorant hillbillies and prejudiced Protestants." "They overlooked the political forces at work and overemphasized the Protestant heritage of West Virginians."
Kurtz quoted a staffer who witnessed a reporter from a national news magazine questioning a voter when Kennedy was campaigning in Cabin Creek. "Do you have any problem voting for a Catholic?" asked the reporter. The voter responded, "I vote Democrat." The reporter then asked, "Does Kennedy being a Catholic bother you?" "I vote straight Democratic, son." Finally the reporter asked, "Does it disturb you that a Catholic is running for president? Do you have any ill feelings against a Catholic?" "Nope," the man replied, "Never met one."
New York Times reporter Bill Lawrence appeared to be one of the most persistent in finding bigots to quote. Such a perspective helps explain why his article on the morning of the primary suggested a Humphrey win.
Ann Hearst, the Kennedy county chairwoman from Morgantown, accused the press of not working hard enough. In an interview for the JFK library she said, "A lot of them didn't bother going out. They sat at their typewriters and typed and ate and talked to themselves." Hearst said, "We knew Kennedy was going to win, because we had contacts with the grass roots in all the areas, and the press did not."
Just before the primary, Life magazine featured a six-page spread on the West Virginia primary that focused on prejudice and corruption in Logan County. The article talked about "half-pints" and vote buying and featured the "Lever Brothers" - two election officials who "will operate Logan County voting machines for voters who need help primary day."
The writing also discussed a deacon concerned that Kennedy would be influenced by Rome and a local judge who was both a "strong Humphrey man" and a former Klan member.
The article provided a firewall for Kennedy since the underlying assumption was if he lost the state it would be because of rampant bigotry and voter corruption.
But Kennedy carried 50 of 55 counties in the supposedly intolerant state that had only a 5 percent Catholic population. And the new narrative was that the West Virginia primary had buried the religious issue.
The extent of Kennedy's landslide indicates the degree to which the national press overplayed the religious issue. Their perspective was in sharp contrast to the state reporters and politicians who held a more accurate view of the political landscape.
Since polling was in its infancy, there was no objective correction available to counteract the reporters' misperceptions of the dynamic of the religious issue or their underestimation of the Kennedy organization throughout the state. As a result the national press often relied on the easy story of bigotry in the hollows.
It is hoped that in the upcoming coverage of the 2008 West Virginia primary, facts will replace convenient assumptions about the nature and changing character of West Virginia. And that 48 years after the press first focused the national spotlight in the Mountain State, they will take Ken Kurtz's admonition to "Never assume."
Rupp is a political historian at West Virginia Wesleyan College.
